Il Grifone Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) Quote "It is getting perilously close to putting scenery on a Dublo layout, isn't it?" Perfectly acceptable, especially seeing that Dublo tunnel portals are available. This is Merit (contemporary - so OK). The signal is Crescent (likewise) and the awful wood/card platform was replaced. The long tunnel to the right of the picture had Hornby portals (Sorry for the rubbish photo - cropped from a low definition original) Edited June 24, 2017 by Il Grifone 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share Posted August 2, 2017 Well, I was intending to effect a few minor changes to the plan and found that I couldn't do anything, not even changing the position of one piece of track, and kept getting a message that I had to purchase a registration key to do anything further. It seems that the popularity of SCARM was built on a lie. We were told it was freeware but it is not. If I was starting out I might consider purchasing a registration key, but the dishonest description of the application as freeware rings a few warning bells - what other claims are made that will prove to be false. My plan is 99% complete, so any further planning I do will be with pen and paper or by putting track down and seeing if it fits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Fleece 30 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) Well, I was intending to effect a few minor changes to the plan and found that I couldn't do anything, not even changing the position of one piece of track, and kept getting a message that I had to purchase a registration key to do anything further. It seems that the popularity of SCARM was built on a lie. We were told it was freeware but it is not. If I was starting out I might consider purchasing a registration key, but the dishonest description of the application as freeware rings a few warning bells - what other claims are made that will prove to be false. My plan is 99% complete, so any further planning I do will be with pen and paper or by putting track down and seeing if it fits. Until the weekend it was still free. All that has happened is in the last 6 months it has been upgraded. I tried to open a previous plan and got the error message no longer compatible. All I did was re download, no registration key or anything, and my drawing opened up. I certainly have had no bother or problems with Scarm so has it changed in the last couple of days? Garry Edited August 2, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share Posted August 2, 2017 I can open the drawing, but I can't do anything with it other than get error messages. I have tried downloading again (and tried reinstalling earlier versions) with no luck. In any case, the old Windows laptop I am using to run it is slowly dying, so I don't think I'll persist in trying to get this rubbish software to run again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Fleece 30 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Each to our own but I certainly don't class it as rubbish, far from it having used it many times for Dublo 3-rail, Tri-ang TT and Peco flexible in both 00 and TT. It is certainly the easiest to use. Garry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I tried opening my copy of SCARM and got a message that, "This beta version is obsolete" and to download a later version. I'll try later, but I did find one or two problems using it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 What you do have to watch out for if installing a fresh copy is that certain anti-virus programs label the SCARM installer as suspicious and refuse to let it run. I've installed it on a VM machine by disabling the AV then once installed re-enabled AV and ran a full scan with no results so it seems clean, However I still don't really trust it! Changing internal file formats to make previous projects obsolete isn't the way to go to encourage new users! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) I'll have to try SCARM on my laptop that refuses to connect to the router. (An Avast pop-up told me my password was insecure and stupidly I clicked on 'resolve'. It resolved it all right. Now it's so secure, it won't connect at all! Attempts to return to an earlier restore point and to reload Windows 10 have all failed.) Edited November 19, 2017 by Il Grifone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted September 2, 2017 Author Share Posted September 2, 2017 The tunnel at the side is just something I put in to see what it looked like - I probably won't end up doing it (it is getting perilously close to putting scenery on a Dublo layout, isn't it?) Nothing much in the way of news yet. I'm thinking now that I will include some scenery, but the main thing will be the trains so, the scenery will be the sort of thing that you would encounter on a 1960s or 70s layout, rather than the scenic masterpieces that happen to have a train running through them that you see today. After all, the main reason in building this is to have a place to watch the trains go around. And what am I doing at the moment? Converting a Tri-ang Lord of the Isles to 3 rail. It needs a bit of tidying up, but then, it only cost me £15 (plus postage) and it didn't have a tender, but I managed to pick one up locally for $A10. The loco and tender believe it or not were slightly cheaper than the two clerestory coaches I found to go with it. So much easier on the pocket than current productions..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Fleece 30 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Nothing much in the way of news yet. I'm thinking now that I will include some scenery, but the main thing will be the trains so, the scenery will be the sort of thing that you would encounter on a 1960s or 70s layout, rather than the scenic masterpieces that happen to have a train running through them that you see today. After all, the main reason in building this is to have a place to watch the trains go around. And what am I doing at the moment? Converting a Tri-ang Lord of the Isles to 3 rail. It needs a bit of tidying up, but then, it only cost me £15 (plus postage) and it didn't have a tender, but I managed to pick one up locally for $A10. The loco and tender believe it or not were slightly cheaper than the two clerestory coaches I found to go with it. So much easier on the pocket than current productions..... Here is my Lord of the Isles 3-railed, magnet between the wheels removed and replaced with lead and still pulling 9 Exley suburbans on nickel track. Garry 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Here is my Lord of the Isles 3-railed, magnet between the wheels removed and replaced with lead and still pulling 9 Exley suburbans on nickel track. Garry Remarkable! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted November 18, 2017 Author Share Posted November 18, 2017 There is now enough space available in a spare bedroom for a layout 8' by 4' (or maybe 8' by 4'6") so sometime soon I will probably be getting some wood as a prelude to putting something together. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 I'll have to try SCARM on my laptop that refuses to connect to the router. (An Avast pop-up told me my password was insecure and stupidly I clicked on 'resolve'. It resolved it all right. Now it's so secure, it won't connect at all! Attempts to return to an earlier restore point and to reload Windows 10 have all failed.) I finally resolved this by deleting Avast antivirus and starting again.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 I have been fiddling about with the plan to see if I can incorporate a second station and managed to do so, after removing the two sidings at the top of the image. This way the trains sort of have somewhere to go to and, more importantly, there will be the opportunity to see trains speeding through a station. I'm not saying that it's perfect, and there could well be a few changes needed. It's more or less what I was aiming for and hopefully won't look to cluttered once it's under way. I am aiming for a design in the "classic Dublo" style, which would allow for two trains to be operated at the same time and with provision to have another two or three trains on the board, sitting in sidings or at platforms as well. There will be some scenic treatment, but it's basically a place to see the trains going around, rather than a model of scenery that happens to have a train running through it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted December 16, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 16, 2017 Yep looks typically Hornby Dublo to me . Can almost hear the clatter of trains going round the circuits now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 (edited) I am at present pondering how I should construct the baseboard. I don't want to build it on one solid board, partly because an 8x4 board is rather unwieldy and also because the room it is going in possibly could be called into use as a spare bedroom on the odd occasion. I was looking at cutting the 8x4 in three. There will not be any need to dismantle and re-erect it on a regular basis, rather once or maybe twice a year. I could have three separate boards that I join together (although my soldering skills when it comes to the electrical joints between the sections are close to non-existent) or I could have it hinged so it folds (with the aid of a spacer to make the fourth side) into a box like structure. I'm favouring the latter, but against it would be the weight, which i would expect to be just over 20 kilos - although if it was going anywhere outside the room, I would enlist the help of another person to move it. I don't have any plans to exhibit it but, if I kept the maximum dimensions to around 1.4m by 1m (sorry to be hopping from Imperial to Metric) it would easily fit in the back of the car - a transportable rather than a portable layout I suppose..... Edited December 19, 2017 by Wolseley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 After remeasuring the available space in the room, I decided I could add another 6 or 7 inches to the width, giving me another couple of tracks, so I reworked the plan and the result is shown below. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Overly fancy scenery, outside the railway fence, is one of those newfangled inventions, cWW2, that you need have no truck with! However, an operational concern, if I may: the return loop that you plan doesn't really serve a purpose, whereas, if it went the other way, bottom left to top right, it could be used to allow trains to run 'out and back' from the terminal platforms. Good luck with it. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 A few points (no pun intended) come to mind looking at the plan. Most importantly, it satisfies the Dublo Prime Objective of covering most of the board with track. Excellent! There is insufficient clearance between track and platform to have pointwork next to a platform (the overhang of a Duchess/City is quite fearsome). I would be inclined to make the inner island platform just serve the mainline with the addition of four short rails below the lateral crossovers. A fence or wall could then be fitted along the goods shed/locomotive depot/reverse loop road. Either the centre or lower road can then be used as a two way terminal road and gives purpose to the crossovers. A row of urban house backs as a backscene along the top edge would be typical scenery. The large area between the station building and the curve just asks to be filled with Dinky buses and other vehicles and an inclined access road leading to a bridge could hide the curve and would be all the scenery needed.... I would split at least some of the shed roads into two sections to allow two tank engines to be stabled. This requires the use of a terminal rail and insulating tab (a square of card works just as well ) or an isolating rail. Allowing a bit more space between the goods roads (one has no access) would allow the addition of some lorries (Dublo Dinky again or lesser makes are available). I like it a lot, but unfortunately don't have the space to copy.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 There is insufficient clearance between track and platform to have pointwork next to a platform (the overhang of a Duchess/City is quite fearsome). I would be inclined to make the inner island platform just serve the mainline with the addition of four short rails below the lateral crossovers. A fence or wall could then be fitted along the goods shed/locomotive depot/reverse loop road. Either the centre or lower road can then be used as a two way terminal road and gives purpose to the crossovers. I had my doubts about the clearance there, so I might do as you suggest or, alternatively take half a platform length out (I wonder how long it would take to saw a Dublo metal platform in half?) although I think I might lay the tracks loosely and see how it goes first. I have five Duchesses, or rather four Duchesses and a City, so I know what you mean about the overhang. A row of urban house backs as a backscene along the top edge would be typical scenery. The large area between the station building and the curve just asks to be filled with Dinky buses and other vehicles and an inclined access road leading to a bridge could hide the curve and would be all the scenery needed.... I don't know if a backscene would work with the way I will be using it (access on all four sides) but I'll store that suggestion away somewhere. The plan is for the area between the station and the curve to be used as the station forecourt and bus stop, with a Royal Mail vehicle near the TPO apparatus. I'm going to use Oxford vehicles rather than Dinky Toys/Dublo Dinkies/Matchbox, as they are cheaper, more easily obtainable, and less likely to be appropriated by my grandson for play purposes (I have already lost one Dinky double decker that way. I would split at least some of the shed roads into two sections to allow two tank engines to be stabled. This requires the use of a terminal rail and insulating tab (a square of card works just as well ) or an isolating rail. I will do that to two or three of the roads, but I haven't got all the isolating rails on the plan yet (the station needs a few more too. Allowing a bit more space between the goods roads (one has no access) would allow the addition of some lorries (Dublo Dinky again or lesser makes are available). I think I have one too many sidings and the whole lot might need moved slightly to clear the turntable but, once again, I'll lay the track loose and see what it's like. As for the lack of access, I'm not going to bother about that unless the little metal people start complaining. I intend to have one or, if it doesn't look unacceptably crowded, two small commercial vehicles in this area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Fleece 30 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Believe it or not the Castle has a slightly longer overhang. I was told this and tried it and it is true. Cutting an aluminuim platform in half is quite easy with a normal hacksaw. Garry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 However, an operational concern, if I may: the return loop that you plan doesn't really serve a purpose, whereas, if it went the other way, bottom left to top right, it could be used to allow trains to run 'out and back' from the terminal platforms. Good luck with it. Kevin Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't quite get what you meant at first but, after tracing the running lines around in the wrong direction, it makes sense. I think I'll do just that. The reason for having a reverse loop, aside from the fact that it's three rail and I can do it, is that I had a very simplified version of this plan set up on the dining room table and my grandson loves it when a train changes direction and starts running the other way around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 Believe it or not the Castle has a slightly longer overhang. I was told this and tried it and it is true Thanks. I would never have thought of that. I'll have to get my Castle out as well to check clearances then. I also have a three railed Tri-ang Hornby Flying Scotsman to test too..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Fleece 30 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't quite get what you meant at first but, after tracing the running lines around in the wrong direction, it makes sense. I think I'll do just that. The reason for having a reverse loop, aside from the fact that it's three rail and I can do it, is that I had a very simplified version of this plan set up on the dining room table and my grandson loves it when a train changes direction and starts running the other way around. I don't know how you can fit the reverse loop the other way without the terminus lines being in the way? Garry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Thanks. I would never have thought of that. I'll have to get my Castle out as well to check clearances then. I also have a three railed Tri-ang Hornby Flying Scotsman to test too..... The Castle may be longer, but seems to slop about less than a Duchess. I'll have to experiment, but I've always avoided the problem by keeping pointwork away from platforms. I think the clearance is actually less than it appears in the diagrams Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now